Exploring the knowledge levels of SENCos in Newcastle primary schools Feedback from Newcastle's pediatric community speech therapist group suggested that special educational needs coordinators (SENCos) have varying levels of knowledge regarding speech, language and communication needs and understanding of the role of the speech-language pathologist. Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency in communication and liaison between the speech therapy department and primary schools. This report is aimed at speech therapists (SLPs) in the pediatric community team to gain awareness of the levels of understanding that SENCos have specifically related to speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in order to develop better communication and joint understanding. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The aim is to analyze the information received from SENCo and identify potential challenges and adaptations that could be made to improve service delivery in the future. Objective: To explore SENCo's current level of knowledge and understanding in relation to speech, language and communication needs. The Bercow Report (2008) highlighted five key themes for improving collaboration between the health and education sectors to create more effective service delivery and therefore better services for children with SLCN. Within this, the theme “Joint working is crucial” expands on the importance of SLPs and schools working more closely together to provide a holistic approach. Additionally, the “Every Child Matters” policy (ref) However, the term “SLCN” has been used differently in a variety of reports and policies, so this needs to be taken into account. For example, in the Bercow report, SLCN is used in a broad sense, including anyone who falls into this range: speech therapists commonly use this definition. However, the Department of Education uses SLCN to describe those whose primary difficulty is speech, language and communication, ignoring those who have SLCN from other causes. This is used throughout the SEN Code of Conduct, suggesting that SENCos would be exposed to this definition. Therefore, these differences must be recognized to reduce any communication errors. However, the most recent SEND Code of Practice in 2015, sought to clarify its meaning and classified SLCN under 'communication and interaction' needs (Department for Education, 2015). Collaborative service delivery models are increasingly being used to help children with speech, language and communication (SLCN) needs. The RCSLT has also identified that transdisciplinary working between schools, parents and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) is an integral part of the service delivery process. provision of the SLT supply service. This provision should encourage consideration of the functional impact of a child's SLCN on their ability to participate and engage in daily activities (ICAN, 2008). This holistic view can increase the child's self-esteem, their access to the curriculum and an overall improvement in the child's communication skills, if joint working is successful (Baxter, Brookes, Bianchi, Rashid & Hay, 2009). Further benefits of joint working for the professionals involved include (Glover, McCormack & Smith-Tamaray, 2015): A consistency in service delivery Transfer of skills and knowledge between professionals An approach involving curriculum and therapy Although it has been suggested move towards a more collaborative model, is becoming more vital in recent timesyears due to increasing budget cuts to the provision of disability services and the introduction of expanded schools (The Bercow Report, 2008). It is the combination of the skills and knowledge of teachers, the clinical and theoretical knowledge of speech therapists, and the intuition and support of parents that should lead to the most effective intervention for children with SLCN. However, a lack of knowledge and understanding of the speech, language and communication needs of SENCos can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of referral and connection to the speech and language therapy service. A report by the Communication Trust in 2017 identified that 67% of SENCos in a survey reported receiving a lack of training on identifying and supporting children with SLCN, with only 24% saying they felt confident of their abilities. As SENCo has primary responsibility for referring children at risk or those developing SLCN to specialist services, this may be a causal reason behind the under-identification of this client group. Furthermore, teachers and SENCos have been reported to identify expressive speech and language difficulties more readily than any other difficulties, consequently making it the primary client group to target for speech therapy (McConnellogue, 2011). However, it is particularly important for staff members to be aware of the other children SLPs work with and can refer them for appropriate reasons. Furthermore, this would mean that they would need to have a greater awareness of ways to identify other difficulties such as understanding and pragmatics, which may present as inappropriate behaviours, to ensure that they receive appropriate support. Methodology: This pre-audit study was conducted for Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital's pediatric community speech therapy service. To achieve this purpose, a questionnaire was created. The questionnaire was developed using previous literature and clinical experience. In the first draft, the sections of the questionnaire were as follows: Knowledge and understanding of SLCNATraining expectations Current satisfaction with the link Improved communications However, after discussions with the wider team, there were concerns about some sections. These concerns stemmed from the thought that the survey would raise expectations and that the SENCo would expect changes that are not realistic possibilities, for example training sessions. Unfortunately, communication problems within the team led to multiple versions of the questionnaire being produced as there was no clarity on the particular objectives and expected results of this survey. Further adaptations were then made, including removing sections on training opportunities and practical issues, and rewording questions to ensure it was clear that the information gathered from the survey aims to encourage more effective collaboration. A pilot sample was carried out using purposive sampling to choose SENCos with a good relationship with the service to enable quick response times and increased reliability and response rates (Palinkas, Horwitz, Green, Wisdom, Duan & Hoagwood, 2015). Three schools were chosen and asked to respond with any adaptations to the survey regarding the length, clarity and relevance of the questions. It was suggested to change some of the wording to make the content of the questions clearer. The questionnaire was then adapted following these suggestions. SurveyMonkey online was used as a quick and easy method for data collection, reaching a sample sizelarge and decreasing the costs and time required (Fife-Schaw, 2012). Furthermore, the delivery of online questionnaires is much faster than that of traditional questionnaires. publication and/or distribution and anonymity can be preserved (Streiner, Norman & Cairney, 2015). To increase response rates, the researcher contacted SENCos before the research was conducted to obtain consent and make them aware that the questionnaire needed to be brought forward. The questionnaire consisted of a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions using a combination of Likert scales and multiple-choice questions. Open-ended questions allow respondents to elaborate on their answers, providing more narrative responses and adding any additional comments. Closed questions were used specifically to reduce the number of ambiguous responses and provide a quick response to the respondent (Fife-Schaw, 2012). Results: Sixty SENCos were initially contacted to complete the questionnaire. 10 SENCos agreed to participate, however, only 7 completed the questionnaire, for a total response rate of 11.6%. Due to late data collection, data were not available for analysis prior to completion of the internship. Therefore, only one section of the questionnaire related to SENCo knowledge of SLCN was analysed, as there was no opportunity to consider all sections in detail. The first question was based on their confidence in understanding the term SLCN (Figure 1). All respondents gave a confidence score above 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, suggesting general confidence in their abilities. However, it may have been useful to also ask how long the interviewee had been a SENCo, to identify whether there is a correlation between years in the job and trust. This would be helpful in highlighting necessary training that may be suitable. The SENCos were also asked to specify the reasons why they would refer the child to therapy. This can identify whether SENCos are referring for the appropriate reasons. The qualitative data was analyzed using inductive content analysis, where overarching themes in the data were identified (Denscombe, 2010). Figure 2 below shows the percentage of themes identified in ascending order. Figure 2: Thematic analysis of reasons for postponement. Themes Percentage of SENCo mentioning this aspect (n=7) Examples Social communication 14 “Impairment of social communication” Stuttering 29 “Non-fluency and stuttering” Concerns 29 “Teacher and parent concerns” Receptive language 57 “difficulties understanding or language processing”“difficulties with receptive language”Expressive language 57 “progress with expressive language skills affecting learning”“children who do not speak”Unclear speech 57 “unclear speech”“difficult to interpret speech”2/7 (29%) of respondents noted that concern from teachers and parents would require a postponement. However, this does not provide enough information to obtain reliable results from these respondents. Further questions via interviews or emailing would be helpful to delve deeper into why concerns arose. 5/7 (57%) of respondents identified receptive and expressive language difficulties and unclear language as the main reasons for referral. This is an expected result as these 3 themes are the most common SLCNs found in primary schools. However, due to this fact, most of the respondents should have identified this reason. With reference to figure 3, 100% of SENCos identified that the speech therapist's work with children with spoken language difficulties would therefore beexpected that all SENCos would highlight this as a need for referral. Figure 3 illustrates the responses to question 6 “Can an SLT operate with the following…”. All interviewees selected 'children with speech difficulties' and 'children with speech difficulties' for the client groups with whom speech therapists can work. However, only 29% had identified that speech-language pathologists could work with children with hearing difficulties. The answer “Children with literacy difficulties” was used as a 'dummy' answer to prevent respondents from randomly choosing all the answers without thinking about the answer. However, 1 respondent identified this as a group of clients that SLT works with. As the majority of respondents did not identify all the correct answers to this question, this highlights the need for SENCos to further understand the role of SLPs. Figure 4 below represents the number of respondents who have received training in particular areas. 6/7 SENCos have completed this application. 4/6 (67%) received training in typical speech, language and communication development, identifying those with SLCN and methods for supporting children with SLCN. However, only 2/6 have received training to recognize the importance of a good SLCN and the impact this can have on the entire curriculum. A more detailed analysis identified disparities between responses within the questionnaires. Some respondents were given a confidence score of 10, however, responses to questions regarding referral lacked detail and questions regarding the role of the speech therapist showed a lack of understanding and knowledge in this area. However, if the interviewee feels they are confident in this, then this should be more concerning. Furthermore, some respondents report a confidence rating of 10 and provide adequate reasons for referral, but are then unable to name the client groups that SLPs work with, including those that SENCos would encounter frequently. This highlights the further need for a more collaborative model of service delivery and the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) training, as suggested by Ofsted and…. It is suggested that the remaining data be analyzed using qualitative techniques such as thematic analysis and discussed in team meetings to identify specific ways to improve communication. Conclusions and implications for clinical practice The findings suggest that SENCos have variable levels of knowledge regarding SLCN in terms of training received, as hypothesized. The data demonstrated that some SENCos are potentially unaware of alternative methods of referral and the roles of the speech therapist, however, insufficient detail is provided in the findings to make this assumption. Furthermore, there is variability in the levels of training they have received… With 7.6% of primary school children suffering from a developmental language disorder, this diagnosis is the most common childhood condition, after autism and dyslexia (confidence in communication). Therefore, SENCos would be expected to identify language difficulties as a major concern and reason for referral. However, from the results reported above, this is not the case. It is therefore worrying that not all SENCos refer to the expected reasons. Furthermore, the results of the questionnaire on the role of speech therapists received variable outcomes, suggesting that the general consensus shows that SENCos are unsure of the role of speech therapists. A lack of knowledge and awareness could lead to under-identification of children with SLCN, which means.